RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE PRINCIPAL FEATURES: A

REVIEW

M.N. Sajoudi1, S. Wilkinson1, S.B. Costello1, Z. Sapeciay1

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Auckland, New Zealand
mnav655@aucklanduni.ac.nz

ABSTRACT

Urban society is highly reliant on the functioning of its linear

infrastructure such as telecommunications, electricity, water and
transportation networks. This dependence is highlighted when
infrastructure systems fail in a time of crisis or disaster. To overcome this
issue, and follow on complications, there is a need to have resilient
infrastructure which can survive after a crisis. Resilient infrastructure
itself is a combination of different principal features and properties, the
definitions of which are distributed in the literature. The purpose of this
paper, therefore, is to identify the principal features of resilient
infrastructure from the literature, as a first step towards uniting them into
a uniform concept for resilient infrastructure. The review identified eight
main principal features of resilient infrastructure from the literature which
together form the basis for transforming the resilience of infrastructure.
Keywords: Resilient Infrastructure, Infrastructure, Resilience

INTRODUCTION

Urban society is highly reliant on the functioning of its linear

infrastructure such as telecommunications, electricity, water and
transportation networks. This dependence is highlighted when
infrastructure systems fail in a time of crisis or disaster. In addition,
because of their network properties, damage to infrastructure in one
place may interrupt service over a large geographic area. The social
disruption caused by the loss of infrastructure is disproportionate to the
actual amount of physical damage. Indeed, having resilient infrastructure
is extremely important to prevent follow on complications when a disaster
happens (Chang, 2009). Not surprisingly, the resilience of systems and
networks has become an important matter of interest for many
researchers (McDaniels et al., 2008).

According to O'Rourke (2007) to help improve the basic principles that

govern the performance and clarify interrelationships, it is useful to unite
all thinking into a uniform concept and a smaller number of sectors on the
basis of common characters. In this matter resilient infrastructure is no
exception.

This study aims to firstly investigate different definitions for resilient

infrastructure. Having achieved this, it intends to identify principal
features of resilient infrastructures from the literature, as a first step
towards uniting them into a uniform concept for resilient infrastructure.

RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE

Since resilience is a broad concept that has been used in a variety of

studies in different fields of science and engineering during recent years
(Norris and Stevens, 2007), it is important to understand the meaning of
resilience for any particular theme of research. Indeed, there are almost
as many definitions of resilience as there are people defining it, but in all
cases resilience is linked to the concept of recovery after physical stress
(Moteff, 2012; O'Rourke, 2007). Also, according to Petit et al. (2012),
most of the definitions agree that resilience is the ability to:

 Absorb acceptable shock or deformation in a time of crisis;

 Recover the functionality of the system after a disaster or a sudden
shock; and
 Operate appropriately even if some parts of the system fail.

Bruneau et al. (2003) indicated that resilience is frequently used to

represent both flexibility and strength concepts. In other studies both
Hollnagel (2004) and Leveson (2002) argued that resilient engineering is
a practical attitude that looks at ways to strengthen the capacity of a
system, to clearly control risks, and to make appropriate cooperation
between required security levels, production and economic pressures.

In contrast, according to De Bruijne and Van Eeten (2007), resilience of

infrastructure is wider than protection and focusing primarily on survival.
In this matter, resilience comprises strategies for the rescue and
functioning of the infrastructure in the event of crisis or disaster, although
some elements of the infrastructure may not survive. Resilience takes
some of the pressure off protection. It also considers how a building or
other component of the critical infrastructure is prepared and protected.
As a result, responders or the civic community can benefit where there
are alternative plans for continued operation in a time of crisis.

All these concepts of resilience are combined in the definition proposed by

the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC). NIAC (2009)
documents resilience as “the ability to reduce the magnitude and/or
duration of disruptive events”.
Regardless of the above definitions, when a new concept or idea like
resilience is implemented in the real world, the human dimensions of
organisations and communities should be considered significant
(O'Rourke, 2007).

RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE PRINCIPAL FEATURES

A review of the current literature identified eight principal features that

infrastructure should possess in order to be considered resilient. A
summary of extant literature on resilient infrastructure features and
properties is shown in Table 1. Each of these is discussed in turn in the
following sections.

Robustness

Many authors view robustness as one of the main features of resilience

and resilient infrastructure (Bruneau et al., 2003; McDaniels et al., 2008;
NIAC, 2009; Petit et al., 2012; Tierney and Bruneau, 2007). Robustness
refers to ‘‘the ability…. to withstand a given level of stress…without
suffering degradation or loss of function’’ (McDaniels et al., 2008).

Carlson and Doyle (2002) stated that in engineering science robustness

refers to maintaining system or network performance when it faces
external, unforeseeable disturbances. They also indicated that robustness
is the ability to retain the desirable features of a system despite changes
in the function of its components and situation. A rapid decrease in
performance is one of the considerable issues after a disaster. The degree
to which system behaviour is sustained after a disaster indicates the
robustness of that system (McDaniels et al., 2008).

According to Anderies et al. (2004) when examining the robustness of

infrastructure as a system, following questions should be answered at
start point: (1) what is the system applicable for? (2) What are the
desired system features? and (3) When does the failure of one component
in the system result to losing its robustness? For example, when a
particular part of an infrastructure fails, but the whole infrastructure
continues to work because of its capability to use other resources and
being compatible with maintained abilities, does that system remain
robust? Or does the whole infrastructure lose its robustness because of
losing a particular part?

Redundancy

Bruneau et al. (2003) and De Bruijne and Van Eeten (2007) agreed that
redundancy is another principal feature of resilient infrastructure.
However, some see considered redundancy as a subcomponent of
robustness (NIAC, 2009; Petit et al., 2012).
 Table 1 Principal Features of Resilient Infrastructure

No. Reference/ Literature Robustness Redundancy Resourcefulness Rapidity Capacity Flexibility Tolerance Cohesiveness

1 Hanseth et al. (1996) •

2 Zimmerman (2001) •
3 Easterling (2001) •
4 Levy et al. (2002) •
Carlson and Doyle
5 •
(2002)
6 Bruneau et al. (2003) • • • •
7 Anderies et al. (2004) •
8 Woods (2006) • • •
Mendonca & Wallace •
9 •
(2006)
10 O'Rourke (2007) • • • •
Tierney & Bruneau
11 •
(2007)

12 Bruneau et al. 2007 •

De Bruijne and Van

13 •
Eeten (2007)
14 Hollnagel et al. (2007) •

15 McDaniels et al. (2008) • • •

16 NIAC (2009) • • •
17 Jackson (2009) • • • •
18 Jackson (2010) • • • •
19 Petit et al. (2012) • • •
Redundancy is a property that allows for alternative choices, decisions
and substitutions in systems or organisations in the case of disaster or
under pressure (O'Rourke, 2007). Levy et al. (2002) stressed the critical
importance of the concept of redundancy: "In practice, all structural
failures can be considered due to a lack of redundancy". Specifically, they
highlighted that the advantage of structural redundancy is that "It allows
loads to be transported in more than one way, i.e., through more than
one path through the structure ".

From the view point of infrastructure planning, redundancies between the

different types of infrastructure offer functional flexibility and compromise
within and between infrastructure systems (Zimmerman, 2001). Take the
lines of communication between the redundant rail, highways and roads
as an example, all of these infrastructure have the extra capability to
serve if others fail, for example if railways fail in a time of crisis, the
highway network can be a good alternative for substitution (Easterling,
2001).

Resourcefulness

Critical infrastructures are significantly interconnected and mutually

dependent in complex ways. This interrelationship can be physical or
through a host of information and communication technologies or both.
Considering this characteristic, infrastructure can be defined as a system
(Rinaldi et al. 2001).

Resourcefulness is one of the prominent principal features of resilient

infrastructure systems (Bruneau et al., 2007; Bruneau et al., 2003; NIAC,
2009). Resourcefulness is the ability to “expertly get ready for, react to,
and manage a disaster or disturbance as it occurs” (NIAC, 2009), that is
the capacity to organize needed resources and services in a predicament
(O'Rourke, 2007).

Resourcefulness starts before the event and continues until the reaction
phase. It includes measures taken before an event to prepare the
population, employees and management of potential threats, including
the implementation of training and planning for the time that a mishap
occurs. Resourcefulness can be seen as a counterpart of robustness. It
helps the system or infrastructure to easily move from the response
phase to the recovery phase (Petit et al., 2012).

Rapidity (Rapid Recovery)

Rapidity or rapid recovery was first proposed by Bruneau et al. (2003)

and later verified by O'Rourke (2007), McDaniels et al. (2008) and NIAC
(2009) and, finally, Petit et al. (2012) as a necessary feature of resilient
infrastructure. Rapidity indicates ‘‘the capacity to meet priorities and
achieve goals in a timely manner in order to contain losses and avoid
future disruption’’ (Bruneau et al., 2007). It is also the speed with which
disruption can be overcome and safety, services and financial stability
restored (O'Rourke, 2007).

After a disaster, given time, the system reaches a certain level of stability
or equilibrium. The speed with which this recovery function is performed
reflects the speed of the system recovery or its rapidity (McDaniels et al.,
2008).

Capacity
This property was first introduced by Woods (2006) as one of the
essential features of resilient infrastructure and was later included in
Jackson’s (2010) four main principles of resilient infrastructure.

Capacity is the ability to withstand the "known" disturbances and a

resilient infrastructure should have this capability (Mendonca and Wallace,
2006). Capacity not only includes the ability to absorb such disturbances,
but also it should be able to deal with higher than expected disturbances.
Capacity also includes a physical and functional redundancy so that the
infrastructure will be able to absorb additional demand in a time of crisis.
Functional redundancy could mean, for example, a coastal city would
have several possible ways for local people to evacuate the area in case
of disaster and find shelter elsewhere. These could and would likely
include the use of cars, trains, boats, airplanes, and other modes of
transport. Clearly, in this example, as the options for evacuating
increases the infrastructure would be considered more resilient (Jackson,
2009).

Flexibility
Flexibility is seen as another principal feature of resilient infrastructure
according to some of the literature (Jackson, 2009; Jackson, 2010;
McDaniels et al., 2008; Woods, 2006). Flexibility is the system’s ability to
restructure itself in response to external changes or pressures (Woods,
2006).

Jackson (2010) also stated that resilient infrastructure must be flexible -

which means, more specifically, that the infrastructure system should be
able to reorder itself in a time of crisis. This reorganization also includes
the ability of the infrastructure to raise the levels of power in the event of
disruption. Such elevation of authority is particularly common in the field
of fire prevention.

The flexibility of a system can be described as a situation in which the

functionality of other parts will be saved in terms of changes in one part
of a system. The shapes of flexibility may be different in various systems.
As an example, “standardisation in one part of the productive chain
facilitates flexibility at the next" (Mulgan 1991); or for a modular
infrastructure system, flexibility can result from creating different
subgroups by picking and collaborating standardized modules (Hanseth et
al., 1996).

Tolerance
Another factor of infrastructure that contributes to resilience is tolerance
(Jackson, 2009; Jackson, 2010; Woods, 2006). Woods (2006) believed
that tolerance is related to how a system behaves near its boundary –
whether the system gracefully degrades as stress/pressure increases or
collapses quickly when stress/pressure exceeds adaptive capacity.

According to Jackson (2010), resilient infrastructure should be "tolerant"

of disturbances where tolerant refers to infrastructure that does not
immediately lose all of its abilities after a break, but will instead gradually
degrade. A good example of this is hospitals; hospitals have their own
power supply in case the public supply network is disabled due to an
earthquake or other major disruption. This makes hospitals tolerant to a
disaster.

Cohesiveness (Inter-element Collaboration)

The last principal feature of resilient infrastructure is defined as
cohesiveness between the various parts of the infrastructure (Jackson,
2009; Jackson, 2010). Jackson (2010) believed that one of the main
properties of resilience for infrastructure is how well each sub part of the
infrastructure relates to the others.

The concept of "cross-scale interactions" is used by Mendonca and

Wallace (2006) and Hollnagel et al. (2007) to refer to cohesiveness of
infrastructure. Hollnagel et al. (2007) also indicated that this term in
resilient infrastructure can occur on three levels:

 The first level is communication, which asks, specifically, if each sub

part of the infrastructure can "talk to one another”;

 The second level is cooperation. Even with no formal ties, the sub
part of an infrastructure should have the ability needed to
collaborate with one another; and

 The third and highest level of cohesiveness includes inter-element

collaboration, which contains formal agreements between the sub
parts of infrastructure to both help and provide resources to one
another.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The concept of resilient infrastructure is a result of a combination of many

features and properties and this review brings together some principal
features of resilient infrastructure as a first step towards uniting them into
a uniform concept. This has resulted in eight principal features being
identified from the literature, which together form an initial basis for
transforming the resilience of infrastructure. A summary of available
literature on these features is included in the preceding sections.

It is argued that although each main feature has its specific scope and
definition, some features overlap with others. Furthermore, a logical
interrelationship between some features has been observed. A good
example of this is the similarity between the features of robustness and
capacity. It can be observed that both concepts deal with the capability of
infrastructure to resist external disturbances in a time of crisis. However,
robustness is an inherent capability of infrastructure to resist while
capacity is a wider concept. Capacity not only includes the inherent
capability of an infrastructure but also considers some strategies to deal
with disturbances higher than those predicted.

Another good example is the similarity between the two concepts of

flexibility and redundancy. Both concepts rely on having backup plans and
alternative choices in a time of crisis. However, redundancy is a property
of having alternative choices and decisions, while flexibility includes the
ability to reorder and reorganise an infrastructure when a disaster occurs.

All in all, this study investigated different features of resilient

infrastructure. Moreover it explored various definitions of resilient
infrastructure available in the literature. The main aim of this paper was
to identify some principal features of resilient infrastructure as a first step
toward uniting them into a uniform concept.

It is suggested that further research should be carried out in terms of

finding concepts of resilient infrastructure in different fields of engineering
and science. For example, what is the role of the construction industry in
providing a resilient infrastructure? How to develop a measure for resilient
infrastructure functionality in each theme of science and engineering?
How different industries and fields of science can collaborate with each
other to provide a more resilient infrastructure for the country.

The features of resilience are complex and inter-related, and as the field
has matured additional features have been identified, but the way such
features inter-relate is not yet well understood. Also the overlaps between
principal features can be an interesting line of research for future studies.

REFERENCES

Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to

analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an
institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 18.
Bruneau, M., Filiatrault, A., Lee, G., O'ROURKE, T., Reinhorn, A.,
Shinozuka, M., & Tierney, K. (2007). White Paper on the SDR Grand
Challenges for Disaster Reduction.

Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O'Rourke, T. D.,
Reinhorn, A. M. von Winterfeldt, D. (2003). A framework to
quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of
communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733-752.

Carlson, J. M., & Doyle, J. (2002). Complexity and robustness.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 99 (Suppl 1), 2538-2545.

Chang, S. E. (2009). Infrastructure Resilience to Disasters. 2009 Frontiers

of Engineering Symposium Session on “Resilient and Sustainable
Infrastructures”, U.S.

De Bruijne, M., & Van Eeten, M. (2007). Systems that should have failed:
critical infrastructure protection in an institutionally fragmented
environment. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15(1),
18-29.

Easterling, K. (2001). Organization space: landscapes, highways, and

houses in America MIT Press.

Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E., & Hatling, M. (1996). Developing information

infrastructure: The tension between standardization and flexibility.
Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(4), 407-426.

Hollnagel, E. (2004). Barriers and accident prevention Ashgate Publishing,

Ltd.

Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D., & Leveson, N. (2007). Resilience Engineering

(Ebk) Concepts and Precepts Ashgate Publishing.

Jackson, S. (2009). Architecting resilient systems: Accident avoidance

and survival and recovery from disruptions.Vol 66, Wiley.com.

Jackson, S. (2010). The Principles of Infrastructure Resilience.CIP-R, 17

february 2010.

Leveson, N. G. (2002). A new approach to system safety engineering.

Manuscript in Preparation, Draft can be Viewed at Http://Sunnyday.
Mit. Edu/Book2.Pdf

Levy, M., Salvadori, M. G., & Woest, K. (2002). Why Buildings Fall Down:
How Structures Fall, WW Norton & Company.
McDaniels, T., Chang, S., Cole, D., Mikawoz, J., & Longstaff, H. (2008).
Fostering resilience to extreme events within infrastructure systems:
Characterizing decision contexts for mitigation and adaptation. Global
Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 18(2), 310-
318. doi:DOI 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.001

Mendonca, D., & Wallace, W. (2006). Adaptive capacity: electric power

restoration in New York City following the 11 September 2001 attacks.
Proceedings of the Second Resilience Engineering Symposium. Juan-
Les-Pins, France,

Moteff, J. D. (2012). Critical Infrastructure Resilience:The Evolution of

Policy and Programs and Issues for Congress.Congressional Research
Service.

Mulgan, Geoffrey J. 1991. Communication and control: Networks and the

new economies of communicationGuilford Publications, Inc.

NIAC. (2009). Critical Infrastructure Resilience, Final Report and

Recommendations. ().National Infrastructure Advisory Council.

Norris, F. H., & Stevens, S. P. (2007). Community resilience and the

principles of mass trauma intervention. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and
Biological Processes, 70(4), 320-328.

O'Rourke, T. D. (2007). Critical infrastructure, interdependencies, and

resilience. BRIDGE-WASHINGTON-NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
ENGINEERING-, 37(1), 22.

Petit, F. D., Eaton, L. K., Fisher, R. E., McAraw, S. F., & III, M. J. C.
(2012). Developing an index to assess the resilience of critical
infrastructure. International Journal of Risk Assessment and
Management, 16(1), 28-47.

Tierney, K., & Bruneau, M. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring

resilience: A key to disaster loss reduction. TR News, (250)

Woods, D. D. (2006). Essential characteristics of resilience. Resilience

Engineering: Concepts and Precepts, Aldershot: Ashgate, , 21-34.

Zimmerman, R. (2001). Social Implications of Infrastructure Network

Interactions. Journal of Urban Technology, 8(3), 97-119.
doi:10.1080/106307301753430764